Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Jan 18 13:44:45 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / The issues with Climate change
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 02 12:55:00
Let me start out by stating

1. I believe climate change exists.
2. I beleive that mankinds actuons have played a major role in causing that.

So I'm not debating those issues. However I understand why people are skeptical.

1. History teaches us to be skeptical of even science when it is tied to political motives.

2. Just because I believe in the problem doesnt mean the solution (s) are agreed on.

3.I think that the problems and solutions have been over sold at times. For example even if we stopped using fossil fuels now I dont think all would be solved. Also we have had issues like this facing mankind before that we innovated our way out of such as the mass famines predicted in the 70s, people swore we were just over populated and millions would starve to death, we innovated our way out of that.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 02 14:25:42
0 net emissions gives a gross emission rate far higher than 0.

There are huge carbon sinks. We are just outpacing them currently.

We do not have to stop using fossile fuels. We just need to use a lot less of them.
yankeessuck123
Member
Thu Jan 02 14:38:27
People are skeptical largely because fossil fuel companies have poured billions of dollars into a massive misinformation campaign and into buying politicians to fight against taking action.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 02 15:02:09
People are skeptical of drastic policy because drastic policy is obviously unecessary.

All over the typical voter looks around and sees no death and destruction, and correctly concludes that the leftist loons, who have been screaming about this nonstop for 20 years now, are quacks.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jan 02 15:28:00
If we're still rejecting incentives for nuclear and scaling existing facilities down, it can't be all that bad.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 02 15:33:41
Its not that bad.

Marginal elevation ski areas are the biggest climate concern to the western way of life.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 02 16:00:23
Forwyn
The nuclear industry is not even standarised yet. There are reports that outline the challenges.

Its not really a first world thing. Many Western countries are already where they should be in terms of nuclear as a % of the power mix.

Downscaling cannot really contribute much beyond energy and/or water security of awkwardly located places.

We (in a global industrial sense) have the smaller power units in production already. Military propulsion units adapted for civilian energy and water needs.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 02 19:04:40
"Many Western countries are already where they should be in terms of nuclear as a % of the power mix. "

No.

There is only 1.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 02 23:02:27
Not with current technology. The calculation changes with generation IV in a few decades.

But its all formulistic.

Nuclear, hydro and some other green for baseload
Most other green energy for peaks

Good regional power transmission allows more green energy to be classified as baseload.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 02 23:30:30
Hydro is awesome but cant be expanded much in developed countries. Almost every vertical foot of the good rivers is dammed already.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 02 23:56:03

http://www.......1.........0i71.9sEOjlLytsM

The top one.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 00:09:32
Reverse flow systems and refurbished turbines and water flow tunnels could easily increase hydro base load capacity by at least 25%.

Jergulmath based on significant knowlege into the industry. There is a lot of efficiency loss compared to the actual energy potential.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jan 03 00:27:51
"There is a lot of efficiency loss compared to the actual energy potential. "

No, there is not. Big francis turbines are like 97% efficient.
Dukhat
Member
Fri Jan 03 00:32:31
So I'm not debating those issues. However I understand why people are skeptical.

1. History teaches us to be skeptical of even science when it is tied to political motives.

2. Just because I believe in the problem doesnt mean the solution (s) are agreed on.

********

1. It wasn't political before. Both sides were discussing ways to deal with the issue with Republicans advocating for a carbon tax and cap-and-trade as the best market-oriented solutions.

It's because of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News along with Fossil Fuel companies that there is such rampant misinformation and they basically took over the major conservative parties in the Anglosphere.

2. The solutions are agreed on. Just the conservative parties are bad faith actors pushing fake news and bad facts. Just because you wish there was some magic solution to deal with climate change doesn't mean there will be one. We need to stop using so much fossil fuels.

It is better in every way to move towards renewables. It fights climate change. It completely removes any incentive to keep intervening in the middle east. It hurts the economy of our enemies in Russia and Saudi Arabia. If Republicans were good-faith actors, they'd embrace fighting it and pushing for more stuff like nuclear. But they don't. They are too beholden to a few narrow interests.

The greatest con job the Republican parties have done is convincing morons that coal jobs are coming back and that fighting climate change is somehow bad. These shitty parts of the economy were going down anyways and produce jobs unreliably.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 00:39:39
Big, modern, francis turbines in peak condition operate at 97% efficiency when measured by inflow and outflow speed.

Hand-hewn tunnels do havoc with laminar flow.
Dukhat
Member
Fri Jan 03 00:39:57
They were shit jobs too. Yeah, you make 60-80k a year and then your health goes to absolute shit from black lung after a decade and the government is on the line for hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical costs.

Muh free market at work. Short-term profits and socialized costs.

The very mantra of the Republican party nowadays.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 00:41:54
Also, gaslighting. I did not say what you responded with.

Part of the gain is by getting optimal efficiency out of the turbines. Quoting optimal efficiency numbers does not undermine the argument.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 03 00:56:45
Dukhtat, relying soley on reducing our GG emissions wont do anything until long after climate change has taken effect.

As for the middle east, The US can meet its fuel needs with out the ME. Honestly I think it would be very easy to do so with only NA sources. The US is one of the world's top if not the top exporter of fuel. Canada and Mexico also have decent supplies now.

I'm all for renewables as well as reducing emissions.

However thinking that alone will work and all we have to do to avoid climate change is drive electric cars is just as retarded as saying coal jobs in the US are coming back in a big way ( they are not)

Hell if the real problem is a warming of the planet we could just pump out some clouds and cool it.

All the while reducing our emissions at a realistic pace and work on transition fuels such as natural gas over coal ( the market is already doing this)
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 03 01:10:45
http://roy...oi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jan 03 01:23:23
Another swing and a miss by Cuckhat. :( Keep trying, buddy

http://www...h-congress/senate-bill/97/text
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 04:40:01
Habebe
Nuclear bombs (lets not call them weapons in this case) are the only feasible way of getting significant reflective particles up to where it matters.

That plan does however have downsides.

The thing is scale. Its mindboggling. The Sahara could be lush jungle at a fraction of the cost it would take to vapourise enough water to impact on global warming.

Just think forest fires. Water vapour is by mass by far the largest byproduct of combustion. Burning down Australia and California would hardly make a blimp.

We are still rather insignificant. It takes us a lot of time and effort to do harm or good on a global scale.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 03 11:45:04
Jergul, Compared to say the Kyoto protocol which will cost WAY more.

Also nuclear bombs are not thenonly way.One example is the clouds....we havw the technology.

Seriously go to either link ive provided.

Also imo something as extreme as some of reduction proposals would be would slow the economy so much that it would hinder our innovation attempts and be countwr productive.

Im all for reducing our emissions.Just not so drastically that it would effect the economy drastically which would be counter productive.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 12:38:21
Habebe
Neolithic humans had the technology as it involves the ability to vapourize water.

The scale is the problem along with cost. The Sun is pouring significant wattage on uncountable square meters of water as we speak. Giving us what cloud cover we have now.

We humans cannot compete with that. Or even add to it measurably. I mentioned earlier combustion. It adds about the same amount of water vapour by weight into the atmosphere as it does CO2.

What was the number? 37 billion metric tons in 2018 alone?

To negligable effect. Want to double that? How much would it cost to boil 37 billion metric tons of water?

I think the issue of our disagreement rotates around the magnitude of the planet.

I checked both links. I read Freakonomics back in 2008 (I really hate the chicago school of economics. It has caused more human misery than Stalin).

Increasing the albedo effect of clouds is interesting, but again. scalability.

Addressing climate change involves endless amounts of economic activity. Perhaps cut a bit back on corporate wellfare and the military industrial complex (both give very little economic activity bang for buck).

Nukes would actually work. Its the only energy we have at our disposal that are measurable on a global scale quickly (even climate change is taking centuries). A crude tool. But we are still quite crude :).

Not that I am advocating that move. I am just suggesting its the only energy we have that is enough.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 14:24:21
The actual lifechanging move has already happened.

If we take 2006 as a baseline (Gore's inconvenient truth) 2.1 children per women in the US. 1.78 today.

The decrease is dramatic as it falls from replacement to below replacement.

The importance for the environment is considerable. The increase in childless households could be characterised as revolutionary.

A nuclear family as a meaningful concept is gone for this and other reasons.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 15:03:23
To speak of one inconvenient truth :).
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Jan 03 15:51:35
We didn't listen. WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Jan 03 16:27:58
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Jan 03 16:49:55
^^^ Oh shit, it's global warming! WE..WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 17:00:38
WoO
We did listen. We are just listening a tad slowly.

Having less children is profound.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Jan 03 17:09:55
I'm hoping CR was just playing along. If he was, it was perfect.

As for the rest of you... Fuck you, go watch South Park.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 17:24:55
Yah, your random shit is just such a quality of life improvement.

Fuck you and your mother too.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Jan 03 17:30:53
It's better than 95% of the dumbass shit normally posted here, lol
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 03 17:49:18
True, but that is beside the point.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 03 18:02:13
Again compared to the costs of reducing carbon this very cheap. We can do the scale.

Now the blasphemy youve stated about the university of Chicago may be more telling of our differences as Id argue that the UoC economics department has been one of the single greatest institutions in modern times.

Milton and Levity being my two favorite economists.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 03 18:03:05
Levitt*

My autocorrect keeps doing that.
Dukhat
Member
Fri Jan 03 18:26:36
Biggest issue as always is cuckservatives making shit up.

Habebe is pulling shit out of his ass. Geoengineering will come nowhere close to fighting climate change and will be costly to enact, might as well do what is necessary and just cut emissions.

As for Foreskin's dumb link, that was just a small bill to help increase nuclear technology development which will take decades if not more. We can and should build reactors now but we're not. Republicans could give 2 shits less about real progress.

The biggest issue here is again having arguments with people who literally distrust all information sources outside their echo chambers. If you bothered to educate yourself, you would see that all this has been discussed to death already by way more qualified people and various options advanced.

Every discussion on this board is so incredibly fucking retarded because of it.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 03 21:22:39
Dukhat,

1. So your saying humans don't have the ability to effect climate change.But also humans have caused climate change.

Mind you, ONE volcano erupting for a few days had the effect of reversing 100 years of climate change for one year.

If you were right than were fucked either way, as the half life is like 100 years for some greenhouse gasses so your argument is to economically cripple ourselves for 30, 40, 50 years until we start to realize any benefits.

But we should be punished because we're evil capitalists, right? Do you see where I get skeptical when politics drive research?

2. Pulling thing put of my ass? I gave several cites off the topnof my head.

Dukhat
Member
Fri Jan 03 22:19:48
I said nothing of the sort. One voclcano erupting for a few days does not affect climate change much unless it's a super volcano like the one under Yosemite National Park that would wipe out the United States if it ever went active.

We're not fucked either way. There is a path back from the brink and it's not even particularly expensive in global terms. A tax on carbon, stabilizing emissions by the 2030s-2040s and walking emissions back from that point onward. We're guaranteed 1-2C climate change which will render many places much harder to live but we can avert catastrophe from much harsher climate change. And hopefully once stable, we can start sequestering carbon again and return the climate to where it was aroudn 1600 which was quite nice.

You do realize a tax on carbon is an idea supported by both conservative and liberal economists right? You tax a negative externality and redistribute it back. Conservative economists argue for a flat rebate to everyone. Liberal economists argue for funding research and development.

A lot of this conversation is talking past each other because so many have bought the Fossil Fuel company lies about climate change and its effects. You either think the consequences are not real or that the policies will be exceedingly harmful or some other nonsense.

If you want to see how full of bullshit they are, just follow the money. Many Fossil Fuel companies now are pushing hard for a carbon tax as long as they get universal amnesty for lying about climate change for so long. The truth is so manifestly evident and is so universally believed by the younger generations that it will not be containable for much longer.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 00:04:17
Dukhat,

http://ear...obal-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

Actually it had noticeable cooling effects for 2 years.

So geoengineering is cheap but carbon taxes that literally tax everything about our modern way of life are cheap? I'm going to have seen some solid evidence on that.Therr was a lot of claims made in that paragraph.

I am actually for moderate measures to reduce carbon. My argument is mainly that merely reducing these gases is not enough to avoid MAJOR climate devastations which will will also have their own costs.

Many Economists are also in favor of investigating geoengineering engineering.I realize many people are worried about messing with such things, economists in my experience tend to be less repulsed by such things.

I do believe the consequences are real. I also believe that things like the Kyoto treaty will be minimally effective and expensive.

Regardless of what Greta says money matters, resources are finite. Why shouldnt we go the route of best bang for your buck?

Obviously profit motives of companies should be taken into consideration and independent analysis should be looked at.

But equally so political motives of people like Tom stayed and Bloomberg who have directed studies that *grasp* support the conclusions they wanted.

Also Im glad you mentioned economists. It seems ridiculous to me to listen only climate scientists on how to fix the problem and ignore economists.

Climate scientists know climate, that foesnt make them experts in allocating resources.



jergul
large member
Sat Jan 04 00:13:23
Habebe
The cost of doing something impossible is infinitly expensive per unit of achieved goal.

The school's thoughts were weaponized and deployed in numerous countries as grand experiments.

The human cost is comparable to what Stalin inflicted.

That would be an interesting paper for the school to do: "Internalizing the social costs of Chicago Boy's policy in Chile 1975-2015"

jergul
large member
Sat Jan 04 00:31:43
We don't control volcano eruptions. We can simulate the effects with nuclear bombs as I have already suggested.

Weathering is a remediation techique that falls under geo-engineering (exposing minerals that react and bind the C in CO2).

Topsoil recarbonizing (basically making, then burying charcoal) is a technique that could be considered geo-engineering I suppose.

Carbon sequestering is a geo-engineering technique.

These and others are supposed to play a role in reaching carbon goals (the reduction of net emissions).

The bang for buck is found in not doing shit. Not doing anything you can imagine.

Economists are heavily involved in climate goal planning.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 00:52:02
Jergul compare Chile to Venezuela.

I'm for trying all sorts of things to reduce carbon as well as cooling the planet.

We do not control volcanoes, but the concept is the same. We can definitely make clouds though.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 04 00:59:10
http://www...dp69C0EwLB14HkSRpRqyC9byYwqZKA

Enough clouds to create weather systems. Not enough to impact on global warming.

You've found something that works worse than weaponized and deployed Chicago School economics?

Yepp, though it also needed a US embargo to actually become worse.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 04 01:23:43
Geoengineering is, basically, bullshit.

Yes, yes, you can get stratospheric sulphur up (though it will damage the ozone) but while you can twiddle things to get the total planetary power balance, you mess with the distribution. So you still get climate change. And some of the models predict catastrophic results.

So you get much of the downside; plus the political issue of who pays for this expensive active intervention; the question of who is liable for the negative consequence born at various locations and against what baseline; and the small issue of what happens if war or terrorism disrupts the infrastructure at any point in the next 500 years (extremely rapid global warming as the sulphates are washed out). Plots you still need to cap CO2 emissions.

It's a total non starter.

If you trust the models enough to plan hare brained active interventions like geo-engineering that we lack the necessary economic and political frameworks to operate; then you trust them enough to phase out most co2 production over two decades which is comparatively easy in comparison.

Geoengineering is just a very expensive, complicated loan of carbon budget for two decades. One we can decide to buy if we need it in around 50 years, having missed the phase out of carbon dioxide emissions.

Best not to think of it as plan A.

Plan A is phasing out carbon.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 01:23:51
So you dont think its possible to make enough clouds to impact climate or you think its too expensive?
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 02:28:03
That last post was to Jergul.

Seb, Im not saying we have a perfect model plan to geoengineer ourselves out of climate change. However we dont have one for just reducing emissions either.

As for cost many of these ideas are relativley cheap when compared to either the cost of things like Kyotoesque plans or the economic cost of the damages of climate change which can be everything from loss of real estate, flooding, fires, climate refugees etc. Ive seen proposals from 200 million-2.5 bn....globally that's cheap.


I will agree politically its a tough sell to many. I also agree that first we should try to reduce carbon. Even if we could just geoengineer it temperature we should still want to reduce carbon.


BUT lets be honest carbon reduction at levels many want are also a tough sell globally.It must be palatable to US and China.


Again, my concerns are just reducing carbon doesn't seem likely to be done in time to avoid terrible reprecussions.Even if we cut all emmisions today we will still have MAJOR shit to deal with.

We are going to have to try* something else alongside it.

As an analogy if a man has heart disease first you try diet and excersize but if that seems unlikely you tack on some statin drugs and if all that still fails then you cut him open.

Diet and exercise is both unlikely to work alone and too much damage is already done its time to tack on some drugs and plan** for the surgery.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 04 02:48:44
Habebe
Its not possible from an energy balance or economic perspective to generate and maintain enough cloud cover to even fractionally offset carbon emissions.

I keep trying to illustrate this by saying that burning down Australia will not have any measurable impact on this year's global warming (and if it does, then the effect will be negative because burning down Australia does add CO2 to the atmosphere).

The above is for cloud cover in the form of vapour.

We do have enough nuclear energy to generate and maintain cloud cover in the form of debris to counter global warming.

That is the closest we can get.

You are kicking in open doors re "other stuff" Carbon offsetting is important and is factored into commitments.

For your analogy. What you want to do is transpant the man's brain into a new body to solve the heart trouble issue.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 04 02:59:32
http://dat...ATM.CO2E.KD.GD?locations=US-SE

It is quite possible to decouple gdp and carbon emissions.

Plan A has to be as Seb suggested. We can entertain the nuclear option afterwords as the concept becomes more and more reasonable in relative terms.

Less corporate and military wellfare would cover the costs I think.

You just have to start liking lower emissions more than you like corporate and military wellfare.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 04 05:51:06
Habebe:

The cost of mitigation - i.e. drastically shifting from carbon intensive sources - is smaller than adaptation or two engineering. It's also safer.

The only thing it's more expensive than is an increasingly impossible to believe scenario where the impact of climate change is negligible. Mostly it will divert wealth from some industries to others, and that's where some of the big numbers thrown about are really about.

This whole freakonomics "hah, I is economist and wise" approach was great in 2008 but lived in a vanishing volume of the scenario space and the data doesn't support it. It sold some books, and helped some people retire and cash out before the industries involved were disrupted. But it's economically and scientifically illiterate.

Geoengineering relies on Russia giving up access to newly accessible lands in Siberia and India accepting the impact of a severe reduction in retainable water from Monsoon's, in exchange for protecting US and Chinese coastal regions.

Such scheme involves setting up weapons of mass destruction (mass drivers capable of lofting millions of tonnes to the upper atmosphere, so more than capable of lobbing nukes intercontinentally) that are prone to attack.

Basically, absent an increasingly unlikely global govt, it ain't going to happen.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 04 11:25:37
"increasingly impossible to believe scenario where the impact of climate change is negligible. "


Ah yes. The man who makes dozens of gloomy world ending predictions... each one turning out to be wrong... has made another dire prediction.

Im sure this one will finally be the one you get right? Rofl.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 04 11:32:40
In reality we can burn fossil fuels full tilt for another century or two before noticing significant drawbacks, with the exception being skiing and some third world fishing villages.

No one cares about third world villages, though i admit the reduction in skiing will be sad.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 16:56:35
Jergul, Not only do we habe the technical expertise to do so it's reasonably priced especially when you take into account of reducing carbon emmisions, Morgan and Stanley estimate the cost to be 50 trillion by 2050.

Not to mention the great success of these agreements, I mean globally now we emmit so much less than we did at say Kyoto.

Notice the sarcasm? As a matter of fact exactly what I argued all those years ago happened.Which is to say countries like those in Europe have effectively given welfare to China and India.They have made energy more expensive in there nations thus lowering demand and increasing supply which makes it cheaper for other nations not bound to the agreements who will then increase there energy use.

While I am for reducing GG id prefer measures that actually work.

Honestly the financial crisis probably had a greater impact than Kyoto.

The best measures to come from such governmental meetings may have been to encourage innovation in carbon trapping and renewables but that is debatable how effective they have been as a factor of causation.

Seb, Has Europes reducing of carbon resulted in net global reductions or a transference?

Your also smart enough to know that there are many strategies through innovation to help that could be both effective a d reasonably priced. While I agree we still must work to reduce Net carbon for several reasons I think very often we forget about opportunity costs.

Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 17:13:14
Listen I think we can all agree that we can not simply use less carbon and avoid the shitstorm.This is not radical thinking, reports from the intergovernmental panel have said to reach goals of the Paris accord we must do more than simply reduce carbon.

We know that international agreements of the past have failed to lower net global output and have mostly just transfered it, as some decline others surge ahead.

Now that said there is a limit to that. There comes a breaking point that we could reduce output at a greater level than others increase. Also through transferring to less carbon intensive fuels and innovation we will use less and it would seem those routes return more bang for the buck.

I dont understand this aversion to innovation solve our problem as mankind has generally done for other drastic scenarios.

It wasnt so long ago environmentalists warned of mass famines because we overpopulated we either had to reduce the population or starve ( hmm that tune rhymes) as you can see that was total bullshit as a matter of fact we grow much more food because what they couldnt grasp was that innovation was a better solution.
Dukhat
Member
Sat Jan 04 18:03:24
There's a concept called value above replacement in sports. Without these agreements, carbon emissions would be much more. The idea that these agreements "transfer" it is specious at best.

India and China were always going to use a shit ton of fossil fuels as they developed. They've bent the curve and used less than they would have otherwise.

As for "aversion to innovation," it's a laughable platitude. The private sector is doing as much as it can right now to be more efficient but without better incentives you won't see innovation. It wasn't private entities that won us the space race or WWII and that's the scale of the problem we face.

And it's laughable you talk about innovation when a big part of the solution will be the development of carbon sequestration technologies which means we need to put a price on carbon emissions. If companies can profit from sequestering carbon, that would unleash innovation on the other side of the equation.

But the GOP blocks it because they are beholden to ancient shitty companies that are tiny to the overall economy but localized to red states.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 18:47:13
Ah yes, Private entities did not win the space the race, Nazi scientists did ( von Braun)

Now i would argue Private companies did win us ww2, the war was won by out producing the Nazis, Sherman tanks were not one on one on par with Panders. But superior numbers won the day and who produced those numerous tanks and munitions.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 04 18:49:51
One could argue since private companies made the weapons allowing us to win the war and that only by winning the war could we acquire Nazi science that won us the space race well i suppose you could reasonably argue that private entities won both.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 05 00:27:37
Habebe
In rough numbers. Europe and and North America have emitted 2/3rds of the man made portion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Emission increases in China and India are part of the plan over the short and medium term.

50 tillion is not a lot considering what it covers (expanding energy needs and keeping current energy supply modernized and efficient. Things that need to be done anyway.).

However, the number I would be interested in seeing is the added cost. It is more expensive to add a nuclear power unit, than it is to add a coal burning plant.

If you simply mean that we should look into all kinds of things that each may slow CO2 emissions by a little bit, then that is fine.

You are coming across as looking for a silver bullet.

Dukhat: Carbon sequestering is really expensive. I would much rather see farmers get paid to produce, then bury charcoal in the topsoil. There are lots of nifty things about doing that.

wwii manufacturing was done command economy soviet style in the US. The industrial base was private in name only. And the USSR did outproduce the US in many things.
Dukhat
Member
Sun Jan 05 03:27:35
A lot of revisionist history overattributing the efforts of one player and completely ignoring the government's large role.

Private entities are important, but government allocated resources and incentives.

@Jergul - And the reason carbons sequestration is expensive is because we haven't even gotten the ball rolling on it because there are no incentives to sequester it with a price on carbon.

Once we have enough renewable sources, there will be a ton of extra capacity in the energy grid during mid-day which can be used to power carbon-sequestration.

It is definitely not something to aim for in the near-term but will be necessary eventually in order to put the genie back in the bottle near the end of the century.
Dukhat
Member
Sun Jan 05 03:28:35
government allocated resources and incentives were also important*
Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 05 03:34:14
Jergul, I beleive in no silver bullet.
Im just weary of climatw agreements and taxes to solve our problems, especially id the largest producers are omitted.


As for coal natural gas these days is putting it out of business. Especially here in the US where NG is so cheap were reducing output.

Ive often wondered what it would cost to convert that all semi trucks in the US be run with NG or if it could be feasible.

Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 05 03:35:43
Dukhat, I was half fucking with you...
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 05 04:35:45
Habebe
Fossil fuel's main advantage is energy density. NG in vapour form is not dense.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 05 09:49:22
Sam:

We could stop burning CO2 now and it would still take a century to see significant impact. The carbon we burn now and over the next century isn't going to have an impact for about a century anyway, so it's trivially true and utterly useless to say that.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 05 09:55:02
Habebe:

I said phase out, not reduce energy consumption.

So I'm not sure what these innovations are that don't involve reducing co2 emissions, but somehow help.

Opportunity cost is against a baseline of some description. The opportunity cost of not controlling emissions is the cost of the damage climate change causes. The cheapest thing, according to all available data, is to phase out co2 emissions.

CO2 emissions will rise as the EU decarbonises. It would have risen even further had we not. It did not rise *because* Europe is trying to decarbonise.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 05 11:08:36
Energy production is set to increase 50% or so. Its one of the main challenges. Carbon neutral stuff coming online is barely able to keep up with energy demand increases, so is not making much impact on replacing pre-existing carbon facilities.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 05 11:36:49
"We could stop burning CO2 now and it would still take a century to see significant impact."

Ahhhh, making up stuff again i see.

In the real world, the oceanic temperature efolding time in response to radiative changes is some 5 years. The land surface and atmosphere is much less.

Lol. Off by more than an order of magnitude. You are so wrong, you should slap yourself in the face with a slab of moldy cheese and beg forgiveness from the science gods.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 05 12:01:33
Sammy
What would the yearly reduction in atmospheric CO2 be if we stopped emitting CO2?

1 ppm maybe? Perhaps 2? Yes, it would take a century to see significant impact.

In fact, if we stopped completely, the global cooling effect would be close to exactly as fast as the global warming effect is now (1-2 ppm increase a year).

Which is something you think is trivial and would take a century to have a significant impact.

If we went carbon neutral (CO2 emission = sinks), we would see no change at all.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 05 15:56:28
Sam:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-019-04686-4
Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 05 16:03:43
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-019-04686-4
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 05 22:10:13
Thanks for proving my point seb.

You do realize that that paper, for most scenarios, has efolding time much much lower than 100 years?

Lol pwnt.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 05 22:13:14
But at least seb understands what efolding time is and though cannot produce a link that substantiates his claim at least finds a relevant link.

Jerguls response is so much less intelligent.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jan 05 22:17:40
Seb gets a C-

His answer was wrong but he sniffed the proper logic a little.

Jegul just gets a straight up F and a note that suggests repeating the class in 2 years after sufficient remedial classes have been completed.

Dukhat
Member
Mon Jan 06 00:22:19
I'm sure people care what a neckbeard climate change denialists gives them for a grade ... or not.

Idiot.

So happy your cheatriots lost. Eat shit and die moron.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 06 00:30:11
Sammy
Gas lighting again.

Why am I not suprised you do not understand basic chemistry? A remedial subject of yours in highschool?

The warming effects of CO2 is a direct funnction of the amount in the atmosphere.

Decrease CO2 for less warming. Increase CO2 for more warming.

0 gross human emissions would see sinks slowly lower what CO2 already is in the atmosphere (as they system would not be in balance).

You should probably not grade people from the back seat of the special bus you are riding in.
Habebe
Member
Mon Jan 06 01:10:14
Jergul, Now i could be wrong but i was under the understanding that natural sinks like trees would not effect c02 10-12 miles high.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 06 01:22:46
Sam:

Get a ruler? It's at least 20 years to get an e-folding for temp on doubling concentrations, and that's just 63% the temperature response, which isn't what you meant by significant response (e.g. melting of ice caps, glacier losses, sea level rises etc. you obliquely referred to).

You said 5 years.

One again, Sam's waffle turns out to be so imprecise as to be meaningles and incoherent.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 06 01:23:48
Bottom line, Sam now thinks we will see sea level rises of a meter within a decade or so of doubling carbon dioxide.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 06 01:25:35
Habebe:

CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmospheric column, sinks at ground level will affect concentrations at the top very rapidly.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 06 10:32:10
"Sam now thinks we will see sea level rises of a meter within a decade or so of doubling carbon dioxide. "

Correct. if we get to 560ppm we should see a meter of rise by that time. And within a decade the world will be close to its new equilibrium.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 06 10:33:23
"CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmospheric column, sinks at ground level will affect concentrations at the top very rapidly. "

Correct. Wow 2 correct statements by seb in a row.

Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 06 10:35:45
You are mightily incorrect on response time of course, but at least your mind can grasp some of the physics, unlike poor jergul and cuckhat.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 06 11:10:29
Sammy
I think you are trying to leverage your bachelors degree way farther than is reasonable.

Nothing you have written has factually contradicted what I said.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 06 11:22:06
I can restate to see if you understand this time:

If we stopped all human CO2 emissions, then sinks would cause CO2 levels to slowly trend towards pre-industrial norms.

It would take a long time for decreasing levels to have any significant impact.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 06 12:05:04
Sam Adams:

That's quite the reversal Sam. For decades you've said the ice caps will take hundreds of years to melt.

We are at 450 now, at current rate we will be at 550 in about 15 years. So you are expecting the full predicted climate response to manifest by what, 2045? 3.5c increase on preindustrial levels and major loss of ice cap mass?
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 06 14:58:06
"For decades you've said the ice caps will take hundreds of years to melt. "

Umm what? The ice caps have started melting. It would take 1000s of years to melt the southern cap completely.

"We are at 450 now, at current rate we will be at 550 in about 15 years."

Utterly and completely wrong. We are at 410 now and at this rate should hit 550 in about 70 years.

How the fuck do you get that wrong? Thats global warming 101.

D-
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 06 14:59:48

"It would take a long time for decreasing levels to have any significant impact. "

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the response time seb and I were discussing.

F
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 06 15:18:36
Sammy: "In reality we can burn fossil fuels full tilt for another century or two before noticing significant drawbacks"

Seb: "We could stop burning CO2 now and it would still take a century to see significant impact"

Jergul: "In fact, if we stopped completely, the global cooling effect would be close to exactly as fast as the global warming effect is now (1-2 ppm increase a year)"

You do not get to define what we are discussing.

Sammy: F.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 06 15:30:21
To the rest. When sammy says efolding, all he really means is how long will it take to reach equilibrium after a change has occurred.

5 years is probably correct for surface waters. It takes much longer for deeper waters. Air and land are much faster.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. He is using a static model(change has happened. Change is over. How long until the system reaches its new equilibrium) to describe a dynamic process (change is ongoing, there will be no equilibrium state for as long as change continues).

He does not have the correct skillset, so is trying to shoehorn everything to fit with the tool he does know.

Really: F.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 06 15:39:33
Correct, 410 now (shouldn't read off blury thumbnails - not bothering to keep every number I've ever leaned in my head is how I get that wrong - some of us have broad expertise in a wide field rather than boring narrow specialty) but it's an accelerating curve at about 10ppm every 5 years now.

Ok, so let's say 70+5 years, and we'd have a global rise of 3.5 degrees, at which point melting of major ice caps become a certainty, but as you admit plays out on century long timescales.

The main impact isn't the 1m thermal expansion. It's the sea level rises that eventuate (plus feedbacks from associated planetary albedo changes).

So again, the point I've been making is no, the temperature response time isn't the same thing as the time scale impacts play out over. You just did your normal incoherent imprecise blustering thing. You forgot we were talking impacts and decided to start talking temperature response time.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 06 15:47:31
"It takes much longer for deeper waters."


Deep waters dont matter, since they are effectively cut off from heat transfer at the thermocline.

But at least you made a statement that was on topic and not completely confused.

So D
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 06 15:53:37
"but as you admit plays out on century long timescales. "

Only for huge warming and huge ice melting.

The lag for a few degrees of warming is minimal.

More importantly im glad you realize how utterly harmless global warming will be if we say, get fusion in 70 years. A meter of sea level rise in 70 years aint shit.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 06 17:43:35
Sam:

At 3.5-4 degrees warming, we get melting. It's not the lag on getting to 3.5-4 degrees vs 63% of that. It's the near irreversible changes that happen thereafter on longer timescales that matter. Last time the world was 2 degrees hotter than now, sea levels were 5-8m higher than now.

Getting fusion in 70 years - lol - we have fission now. Fusion - for a host of reasons - isn't any better than fission (and probably not cheaper, we'd need demo now to get any real impact on carbon emission in 70 years if you look at coal roll back and fission roll out).
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 07 11:51:51
Near irreversible minor problems are still minor problems.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 07 12:45:59
The sea level rises - and impact of losing the smoothing and water storage function that major icecaps around the world fulfill is far more significant than the things you raised as issues.

You are all over the place.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share